Here is a thread over at the JREF that is very interesting.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158107
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnopompic

The first link is the forum thread, the second two are the specific states one might experience such things in under normal circumstances.

The topic is broad, but what had really caught me in this thread was post # 17, and just how poignant this anecdote was for the stigma attached to the idea your mind is not perceiving things correctly, for whatever reason.





I find it sadly true that the paranormal is far easier to consider and accept then the mundane, yet I suppose unsettling, idea that your mind has transitory moments where it does not lead you to proper perception.

I think there is a very sound reason why “the paranormal is far easier to consider and accept then the mundane”… the paranormal is the simpler explanation (not to mention being more comprehensive).

But to stay on-topic…

I think it's obvious that the stigmatization is inherent in the mundane explanations: "delusion", "hallucination", "does not lead you to proper perception", "not perceiving things correctly", etc.

And to me, that is the sad part.

the "mundane explanation" really amounts an ad hominem - “The perception is wrong because there’s something wrong with the perceiver.”

Did you read that thread?

Lots of examples where given. You do know this has been studied . . . well quite a lot . . . right?

Yes and Yes.

So what do you think is actually going on during sleep paralysis, or waking or sleeping hallucinations?

You know sky your great at saying nothing while seeming to criticize perhaps you can elucidate for us your meaning in EVEN mentioning ad homs when discussing hallucinations.

Are you saying hallucinations don't happen?

Bushi,

Another great topic! I've experienced sleep paralysis a few times. Additionally, and I'm not certain if its exactly the same thing, but I can gently, deliberately induce a similar state as sleep paralysis, and gently, deliberately leave it.

The absolute worst case of sleep paralysis I have had was when I was 'inducing' a similar (or same) kind of state onto myself, and slipped into sleep while doing so. When I woke up (seconds later? minutes later?) I had forgotten all about the 'meditation', and so I did not know why my body wasn't responding. For a split second, before I had time to 'think' about it, I experienced a most horrifying fear, and a variety of very bizarre 'impressions'.

Then I realized that I was simply paralyzed; wondered if it was permanent, what caused it, what I should do. Eventually my body/nervous system returned to normal, but it took much longer than when I normally bring myself in and out, and it was emotionally a very unpleasant experience.

When I induce the state, it feels awesome. Waking up to it was just awful.

I've had some really amazing visual hallucinations in my life, especially shortly after waking, and especially during periods of my life in which I've done a great deal of meditation.

Also, I've played with deliberately blending my visual imagination with my visual experience; based on this, its easy for me to accept that others might experience mild, selective visual hallucinations without realizing it.

You see, the problem here is that we have two different philosophies that are based on diametrically opposed fundamental premises.

The simple use of the word “hallucination” necessitates a differentiation between “reality” and “perception”, which I don’t make at the fundamental level.

So my answer to the question would be: “The same thing that is always happening with everything – the ‘perceiver’ is creating a reality, and that reality is different from other realities.”

Hmmm. I’m not even sure how that can make sense. If I’m saying nothing, then what could be the source of the concept of criticism?

So maybe you should be “saying something”.

I wasn’t discussing hallucinations by themselves so much as how the how they related to the thread title – specifically “stigmatism” and where it’s roots lie. IMO, the ad hominem inherent in the mundane explanation is the stigmatization.

And really, what is there to discuss here? One can simply say “It is/is not interesting that such phenomena are reported.” and that’s it.

Or one can say “Here is what I think about the sources/causes of the phenomena themselves” and hence a debate ensues.

Or one can address the effects of the phenomena – which is exactly what title imples (ref: “stigma”).

So I picked the latter and discussed that, just as you did (ref: "hallucination", "does not lead you to proper perception", "not perceiving things correctly", etc.)

No. I’m only saying that the mundane explanation of hallucinations is insufficient – at least for my needs.

I noticed the comment in that thread about auditory hallucinations of phones ringing.

It seems that this persons 'phone hallucination' was tied to repeated exposure. About ten or twelve years or so ago I had frequent visuals related to a video game (Descent! - after playing it for 4 or 5 hours) when I closed my eyes late at night. I knew quite a few people that had the same experience. I don't count this as a hallucination because there is no mistaking the visual and reality - the visual was only experienced when the eyes are closed.

But consider...disregarding 'transparency' you cannot 'see' both a hallucination and reality at the same place at the same time...so if your mind is inclined to hallucinate, but you have your eyes open, and you clearly SEE reality, then the only choices are: (a) no hallucination (b) transparency or (c) visual reality is obscured.

Its not quite the same with sound, we are accustomed to experiencing a variety of simultaneous superimposed sounds. In other words, the auditory equivalent of 'transparency' is exactly how we normally experience sound.

So the guy with the 'ringing phones' sounds a lot like my experience with visuals from playing Descent - except that my visual perception of actual reality kept the hallucination (if it is) at bay until my eyes were closed.

For people who believe that there is a reality, and that we can perceive it (however directly or indirectly), a discussion/examination of our sensory apparatus and the various ways it functions is extremely important.

Agreed.

I disagree. There are many experiments that have been done to show that the mind can add bits and pieces to all manner of stimulus, filling in the picture both visually and audible.

Its true that its much less frequent to have strong visual hallucinations after an attempt to confirm the stimuli has been made.

Most of the time your brain will catch the mistake upon inspection, we can recreate this in a manner of ways.

Flashing lights are an easy way to do this. In Dan Dennets book consciousness explained it has some great examples.



-----
Sky what I mean when I said that you find a way to say nothing . . . its becuase I am not going to sit here and ask you 20 questions any more, in fact I am not really interested in your opinion at all. Its just far too strenuous (probably impossible) to try to make sense of scientific data through the lens of your philosophy. I am just not up to the challenge.



I am ok with that. Thats great that you believe we fashion reality to suite our needs, I realize you have your own needs and will believe whatever fits those needs.

What matters to me is truth, and for me to assume that we can get at truth I have to assume that we can perceive facts, and come to consistent conclusions about those facts. So no solipsism thanks. Also no dualism, that is crushed by facts bud, so go for it, but im not interested there either.

The facts point to the brain as the source of consciousness, perception is the brain plus body, and bodies move through space by using perception, scientists with bodies even go so far as to try to gather facts and explain them . . . . . . ok, if you dont agree with all that, then you really have nothing to add here as that is the basis of this conversation.

Again, feel free to spam us with off topic philosophy, this is the science and philosophy forum, but try to get it all into one post ok?

Thanks,

It seems to me that one must presuppose that there is only one reality, in order for all of that to follow.

But if one presupposed multiple realities, then the whole picture changes. It could be that all so-called “hallucination” is nothing more than the perception of a different reality.

But that may be going too far off topic. How say you Bushi? Too far off topic?

Oh yea so there is no hallucination just lots of realities with Napoleonic dictators in bathrobes experiencing Waterloo while we watch them in a mental facility from our reality. YUP I am cool with that, lets take it farther and explain other facts . . . .

So I can take drugs and go into other realities? AWESOME DUDE HOOK IT UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! TIME TO GO VISIT ALIENS<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BUT HEY DUDE WHY DO THE ALIENS ONLY ALLOW ME INTO THERE REALITY AFTER EATING TONS OF SHROOMS AND SPINNING IN CIRCLES WHILE WATCHING ALIEN3?????

No seriously I find your explanation fits all the data, YOUROCK.

Ok. No harm, no foul.

What matters to me is truth, and for me to assume that we can get at truth I have to assume that we can perceive facts, and come to consistent conclusions about those facts.I agree with that in that it is a valid and viable means of operating as a human being on this planet.

I can see how one could interpret my philosophy as dualism, but in truth, it is no more dualistic than quantum complementarity or quantim non-locality. So I'm not sure what you're referring to as "dualism", but as I understand the term, it doesn't apply to my personal philosophy. Also, solipsism most definitiely does not apply either. I firmly believe that I am not the only consciousness that exists.

But I do understand your disinterest, just as I'm sure you can understand my disinterest in a materialistic approach to philosophical questions.

I do not see this as a philosophical topic, but you know what sky, run with it, I don't want to step on anything to be honest, perhaps someone else will engage.

So you believe there to be only one reality. Fine. I've got no problem with that. I can't disprove it any more than you can prove it. So you pick your starting premise and I'll pick mine and you can make fun of mine all you want and I'll refrain from returning the favor.

Nope, there could be many, but the one I am typing to you in we share, when we dream we also share the same reality, and so to when we hallucinate.

That fits all of the factual evidence, all the experimental research, all the data.

Well, you know me. It's what I do.

But I understand that it is really intended to be a scientific topic. And since I think anything I might be able to add, already would have been either confirmed or refuted but someone else with years of study and research under their belt, I guess I don't really have anything to contribute to the scientific discussion.

I understand what you're saying.